This WAS a change to the Constitution. The problem is that it has not been interpreted by the courts the way the enactors intended. It was NEVER intended to give Citizenship to the children of foreigners, whether here legally or not. And, the question of whether children of ILLEGAL aliens are citizens has never been taken to the Supreme Court, let alone ruled on.
Here is the statement of someone who knows better than anyone posting to this thread.
"constitutional lawyer James C. Ho, a former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, said amendment authors "clearly meant" to include the children of foreigners. In fact, he said, opponents at the time warned it would do just that. Lawmakers "debated the wisdom of guaranteeing birthright citizenship," said Ho, "but no one disputed" its meaning.
Assuming Fred is trying to get votes, it was a bad tactical decision to bring this issue up in Florida, of all places.
Yes. An amendment. One of 27.
The problem is that it has not been interpreted by the courts the way the enactors intended. It was NEVER intended to give Citizenship to the children of foreigners, whether here legally or not.
The language is clear and direct. The primary goal was to make it perfectly clear that former slaves and their children were US citizens. But the men who wrote that amendment weren't stupid, and they weren't unaware that there were foreigners who might give birth in this country. Call off the seance to try to determine intent -- they wrote what they wrote.
Determining intent is a useful tool when there's ambiguous language. The only ambiguity that's relevant here is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." I believe it's pretty clear that phrase was intended to exclude Indians on reservations, who at the time were not US citizens but are now. But at least there's some room for debate on that phrase.
In my reading, I can only think of one group of people who are covered by "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- folks covered by diplomatic immunity. Maybe passengers on a foreign-flagged airliner, on a flight that does not take off or land in the US, who give birth in flight in US airspace.
If there's something relevant the authors of the 14th didn't know, which I don't think there was, then the solution is to again amend the Constitution.
And, the question of whether children of ILLEGAL aliens are citizens has never been taken to the Supreme Court, let alone ruled on.
That' because there's not much of a case to be made, I think the District courts would pretty much all rule the same way and the higher courts would be hard-pressed to find grounds to review the case.
An act of congress could seek to clarify the citizenship-at-birth portion of the 14th, and the courts might uphold it, but I doubt it. No court is likely to, or indeed should, strip any born US citizen of citizenship on its own initiative. Some naturalized citizens have been stripped -- usually Nazi war criminals on the grounds that they lied on their application, were never eligible, and their naturalization is therefore invalid -- but even that is rare.
I don't want judges running around turning citizens into non-citizens. That is just about the most incredibly dangerous legal precedent I can imagine.